Buckeye Institute Study: No Urban Sprawl Crisis in Ohio

Yes yet another depressing study from a Libertarian think tank that has decided there is nothing wrong with sprawl and that the free market(i.e. more/wider

Message 1 of 3
, Jan 3, 2002

0 Attachment

Yes yet another depressing study from a Libertarian think tank that
has decided there is nothing wrong with sprawl and that the free
market(i.e. more/wider roads to subsidize more sprawl) is the
solution!

Of course none of the people sitting on the board of trustees for the
Buckeye Institure has a degree in architecture or planning(they're
all Economists and MBAs.. big surprise!).

"Smart" growth plans adopt a prescriptive view of cities and urban
developments that ignore consumers wishes and substitute it with the
will of politicians. Rather than letting consumers decide where they
want to live, most plans implicitly accept a mid- and early-twentieth
century view of cities that is compact and relatively high density,
mixed use and less reliant on the automobile.

This view is dated. Over the last half-century, affluence and the
emergence of automobile usage has transformed the traditional urban
form. Ohioans can afford bigger houses on bigger lots and choose to
do so. Moreover, the automobile allows Ohioans the flexibility to
live miles from work.

Translation: Because "Smart" growth plans provide a mixed use,
affordable alternative to McMansions we're going to label it an
elitist ploy of big government. This sort of consumer choice would
all of a sudden make suburbia unattractive and thus rob all of our
unimaginative rich developer/banker friends of their ability to make
quick and easy money off of sprawl type developments. Compact,
relatively high density, mixed use cities may be what a growing
number of people want, but we're going to lie through our teeth and
pretend how wonderful suburbia really is! After all consumer choise
is what its about, ummmm even if the only choice is between one
prentious subdivision or the other!

So you see this view is dated! Over the last half-century our
affluence from having the highest standard of living in the world,
along with the automobile has transformed the traditional urban
landscape into a consumer paradise! You can afford bigger houses on
bigger lots, though you might not be able to furnish them or take a
vacation for the next 30 years! Moreover, the automobile allows you
the flexibility to piss your life away in traffic while the world
passes before your eyes!

Matt Lyons

turpin

... A lot of people ARE choosing to live in the burbs. In my view, and I suspect yours, the burbs are a pretty ugly and uncomfortable choice. But we won t

Message 2 of 3
, Jan 3, 2002

0 Attachment

--- In carfree_cities@y..., "enjax" <mattlyons@c...> wrote:

> My favorite passage from this depressing, moronic article..
>
> "'Smart' growth plans adopt a prescriptive view of cities
> and urban developments that ignore consumers wishes and
> substitute it with the will of politicians. .."
>
> .. Compact, relatively high density, mixed use cities may
> be what a growing number of people want, but we're going
> to lie through our teeth and pretend how wonderful
> suburbia really is! After all consumer choise is what its
> about, ummmm even if the only choice is between one
> prentious subdivision or the other!

A lot of people ARE choosing to live in the 'burbs. In my
view, and I suspect yours, the 'burbs are a pretty ugly
and uncomfortable choice. But we won't make much headway
arguing on the basis of OUR preferences versus others'
preferences. Instead, I think it makes more sense to look
at why people make the choices they do, what factors lead
to the range of choices, and who bears the costs. It's
pretty clear that existing urban geography does NOT result
simply from market forces. Here is a short list of the
political factors that have led us to where we are today:

* Government regulates utilities, forcing urban consumers
to subsidize the provision of power, phone, and water
to outlying areas.

* States build roads to the suburbs, and limit cities'
abilities to control the use of their roads.

* Developers are not held responsible for run-off and
other pollution they cause.

* City and state government subsidizes the tremendous
damage done by automobiles. (Consider how much
of the courts and the police are dedicated to
resolving traffic incidents, and how many public
health dollars go to tending those injured in auto
accidents.)

* The court and police resources dedicated to dealing
with automobile damage lessens the availibility of
those resources to deal with crime.

* The public school system ties choice of school and
school administration to where a family lives.

There is, in my view, an irreducible political element to
the management of public byways. But even someone who
doesn't believe that should not ignore the large extent to
which the suburbs are subsidized.

enjax

You forgot to add: * Misguided, post-WWII era zoning laws that make it illegal to actually plan anything resembling a traditional neighoborhood. Most city

Message 3 of 3
, Jan 3, 2002

0 Attachment

You forgot to add:

* Misguided, post-WWII era zoning laws that make it illegal to
actually plan anything resembling a traditional neighoborhood. Most
city planning agencies these days are nothing more than permit
signing agencies.

I just finished reading James Howard Kunstler's "Geography of
Nowhere" and "Home to Nowehere" over Christmas. If he had his way,
he would toss out all of the current zoning laws, which
municipalities basically buy off the shelf, and replace it with a
traditional neighborhood development code. I think he's right on the
money here, but the problem is that solution freaks out both the
NIMBYs and the Propertarians who think any sort of government
intervention regarding property rights is attack on their freedom
i.e. "You can't tell me what to do with my land!"

When I was driving back from Atlanta to Tennessee yesterday I passed
through Franklin, NC and saw several billboards proclaiming "Vote for
Freedom! Vote NO on zoning!" along with a URL. Well I checked out
the URL today and their arguments against any form of zoning are
pretty damn scary. Yeah its mostly the typical flag waving crap
ignoring any sort of sense of what is right for the common good.
About the only thing they're right about is that zoning, as it exist
in the form of single use, divides classes by income level. Other
than that, the whole thing appears as it was written by someone with
an 8th grade education who doesn't know a bit about traditional
neighborhood planning.

Check it out and be apalled, as this is a good example of the
mentality we're up against..

--- In carfree_cities@y..., "turpin" <turpin@y...> wrote:
> --- In carfree_cities@y..., "enjax" <mattlyons@c...> wrote:
> > My favorite passage from this depressing, moronic article..
> >
> > "'Smart' growth plans adopt a prescriptive view of cities
> > and urban developments that ignore consumers wishes and
> > substitute it with the will of politicians. .."
> >
> > .. Compact, relatively high density, mixed use cities may
> > be what a growing number of people want, but we're going
> > to lie through our teeth and pretend how wonderful
> > suburbia really is! After all consumer choise is what its
> > about, ummmm even if the only choice is between one
> > prentious subdivision or the other!
>
> A lot of people ARE choosing to live in the 'burbs. In my
> view, and I suspect yours, the 'burbs are a pretty ugly
> and uncomfortable choice. But we won't make much headway
> arguing on the basis of OUR preferences versus others'
> preferences. Instead, I think it makes more sense to look
> at why people make the choices they do, what factors lead
> to the range of choices, and who bears the costs. It's
> pretty clear that existing urban geography does NOT result
> simply from market forces. Here is a short list of the
> political factors that have led us to where we are today:
>
> * Government regulates utilities, forcing urban consumers
> to subsidize the provision of power, phone, and water
> to outlying areas.
>
> * States build roads to the suburbs, and limit cities'
> abilities to control the use of their roads.
>
> * Developers are not held responsible for run-off and
> other pollution they cause.
>
> * Cities build expensive roads geared to automobile
> travel that impose barriers to other forms of travel.
>
> * City and state government subsidizes the tremendous
> damage done by automobiles. (Consider how much
> of the courts and the police are dedicated to
> resolving traffic incidents, and how many public
> health dollars go to tending those injured in auto
> accidents.)
>
> * The court and police resources dedicated to dealing
> with automobile damage lessens the availibility of
> those resources to deal with crime.
>
> * The public school system ties choice of school and
> school administration to where a family lives.
>
> There is, in my view, an irreducible political element to
> the management of public byways. But even someone who
> doesn't believe that should not ignore the large extent to
> which the suburbs are subsidized.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.